Login

Register | Forgot Your Password? | Close
FILE - In this Dec. 31, 2012 file photo, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. gets into an elevator on Capitol Hill in Washington. Gun control senators are discussing revising the defeated background check bill in attempt to revive it. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate rejected an effort Wednesday to expand the use of firearms on some of the nation's most frequently visited federal lands, handing gun control advocates a modest success.

The measure, backed by the National Rifle Association, represented one of two efforts Wednesday by gun rights supporters to take the offensive in Congress. Across the Capitol, a Republican-run House committee voted to make it easier for some veterans with mental difficulties to get firearms.

The rejected Senate proposal would have let people use guns for any legal purpose on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees nearly 12 million acres that abound in lakes, rivers, campsites and hiking trails. Currently, guns on those properties are limited to activities like target-range shooting and hunting, and weapons must be unloaded while being carried to those activities.

Senators voted 56-43 for the proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., but it fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.

Eleven Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent voted for Coburn's plan, underscoring the party's divisions on the gun issue.

Those voting for Coburn's proposal included all four Democrats who opposed the bipartisan bill expanding required federal background checks to more gun buyers that the Senate rejected three weeks ago.

The background check expansion has been the pillar of President Barack Obama's effort to restrict guns following December's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Top Democrats and other supporters hope to win fresh support and stage a new vote on background checks, perhaps next month. Advocates hope that voting for Coburn's proposal might let some senators show voters they support gun rights and give them more leeway to reverse themselves and vote for background checks next time.

Also backing Coburn's proposal were the two chief authors of the defeated background check measure, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa.

Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a supporter of the Manchin-Toomey plan, was the only Republican to vote against expanding gun use on Corps land.

Coburn said gun rights on Corps land should be the same as in national parks and federal wildlife refuges, where federal law has allowed visitors to carry guns since 2010. He said after the vote that he would keep reintroducing the measure until it passes.

"Fifty-six votes, a majority of the Senate believes we ought to have one sane policy" on gun rights on federal lands, Coburn said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.

"This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists," she said. Allowing more guns "sets up a national security threat. It endangers people."

Army Corps lands are used for recreation by 370 million people annually, more than visit the property of any other federal agency. About 80 percent of them are within 50 miles of urban areas, making them accessible destinations.

Also Wednesday, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted by voice to require a judge or magistrate to declare a veteran is dangerous before the person's name is entered in the background check system's database of people barred from getting firearms.

Currently, the Veterans Affairs Department sends the system the names of veterans it has declared unable to manage their financial affairs- 127,000 names since 1998.

Supporters of the measure said veterans who can't handle their money aren't necessarily dangerous.

"It's arbitrary. It's inconsistent and it's unreasonable," Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the committee, said of the current process.

The Veterans department opposes the measure, saying veterans in the database already have the ability to appeal.

___

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

share this story:
facebook

153 Comments   |   Join the conversation »
  • Add A Comment 
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Michoacan,
    I'm not talking about "Temporary inconvenience because of slow, sometimes bungling bureaucracy". I'm talking about the ability for the federal government to completely stop all legal gun sales and preventing legal gun buyers from buying guns and obey the law by not keeping a firearms resistry. Would they do this is debatable but I am not willing to take the chance. I do not trust the government. Our founding fathers did not trust governments. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Calls for Congress to pass laws keeping
    guns from criminals. These are the same brain dead responses from the Left that just keeps people wondering what is going on. Newflash, we already have laws that keep guns from criminals, but criminals don't care, that's why they are called criminals.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Brain dead Liberals like Micho
    honestly believe in their little minds that a universal background check will force criminals to fill out a piece of paper before getting their hands on a gun. The very thought is laughable at best...sad little people.
  • Abuse
    misterosr wrote...
    Timmy Heaphy isn't telling..
    the whole truth. The whole truth is that those background checks stopped 1.5 million criminals from obtaining a firearm through "legal" channels. Of those 1.5 million criminals 1,499,000 probably eventually obtained their firearms through "illegal" channels. Back ground checks probably deters less than 10% of criminals from getting a firearm, but they do let the Government know exactly where to pick up 100% of the "legally" obtained firearms.
  • Abuse
    Anti-deceptor wrote...
    Micho the slow learner
    Glad to see others are schooling the slow kid in class.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    The current, sitting Supreme Court,
    packed with far right conservatives, has ruled that governments can regulate the possession and carrying of firearms by private citizens. Gun nuts argue with me that this can not be so, yet the highest Court in the land has already said yes it can. Uninformed gun nuts need to read up on the subject so as not to embarrass themselves with so many too public displays of ignorance.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Never argue with an idiot
    they'll bring you down to their level and kill you with experience.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Guns are why we have the united states
    To much of America a firearm is a symbol that you are a citizen, a responsible person who can be trusted with an instrument of considerable power that enables you to protect yourself, your family and your property. To the elite a firearm is a symbol of barbarism and a lack of trust of one's fellow citizens and government.
  • Abuse
    Evo1 wrote...
    Proves BS Democrat Agenda
    So, the Republicans are willing to give them universal background checks (despite the Department of Justice's report saying that most criminals just have someone with a clean record buy for them already, making such checks worthless) with the only condition that it not be used as a means to construct an illegal national gun registry (two separate federal laws make it illegal for the federal government to build a database of gun ownership), and do the Democrats agree? No, of course not. Remember it was they who refused to pass it without conditions.
  • Abuse
    misterosr wrote...
    By the way
    there was an armed "gun nut" at a coffee shop in the shoppeng center when Giffords was shot but he chose not risk hitting innocent bystanders because he didnt have a clear shot so instead he joined everyone else in trying to subdue the shooter when the shooter's gun jammed. You see, most of us "gun nuts" are educated in the proper use of firearms and are responsible, law abiding, citizens.